Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.

This is just an extraordinary statement. One, it validates everything the Conservatives have said about the coalition: that it did, indeed, put the Liberals in bed with the separatists. And two, as a Conservative spokesman took about a millisecond to point out, if he was so opposed to doing a deal with “people who want to split the country up,” why did he sign that letter to the Governor General, expressing his support for the coalition and urging her to put it in charge of the country? If it was right then, why is not right now? And if it is not right, why is it not? After all, weren’t we told over and over at the time that the Bloc were not “enemies of Canada“, but the duly elected representatives of the people of Quebec?

Ignatieff’s instincts on the coalition were, and are, sound. He may even sincerely believe what he is saying. But he didn’t act on those beliefs when it counted. And the Conservatives are going to make him wear it. Especially after this.

It’s a free newspaper, generally quite internationalist in editorial slant; it was originally founded by Chinese expats to counter PRC propaganda, as I understand it. I have no idea about its reach elsewhere, but it has boxes everywhere in Ottawa, next to those of the other free transit dailies.

That said, we’re only complaining that Ignatieff committed a Freudian slip? Really? The colossal arrogance of “I could have been PM, but I want it on my terms” doesn’t even register?

I hate to point out a rather glaring point but when Mikey said he would be PM right now if the coalition had gone through …. well I mean wasn’t Dion the leader at the time and is Mikey sure the party would have chosen him as leader If Dion were PM? Am I missing something here – Mikey needs to learn about giving too much out at interviews as his shoes might start to taste as bad as his political decisions of late.

Let me try a third angle: I think he’s referring to not adopting the same ill-fated strategy that just felled his predecessor. He could have been our PM if a whole bunch of if’s improbably fell into place following Dion’s flameout. He wisely opted not to attempt it.

Yes, Derek. Every columnist who points out a massive Liberal gaffe is a shameless Tory hack, regardless of how critical he is Harper in his other columns. If only the media saw things as clearly as you do.

Derek, you are a fool. Perhaps you missed the essay Andrew wrote condemning Harper for abandoning conservative principles? Or the 6 week crusade Andrew led against David Emerson’s appointment to Harper’s cabinet? Or any of the countless other opportunities Coyne has taken to slam Harper?

Comments like this are the product of the media environment we have today. Critics of the Liberals are so few that anyone who dares step up to criticize the Liberals is branded a Conservative hack.

When does he really slam Harper? And condemning Harper for abandoning conservative principles is a good way of saying you wish they’d go back to the “‘real conservative principles” because you truly believe in them!

Maybe he recognizes his side lost the PR game and if-you-can’t-beat-’em…
Maybe he truly believes it and is offering a refreshing bit of, what’s the word, honesty.
I am not so sure it’s the misstep you think it is. Especially if the Tories keep locked on the ethnic cuisine critic talents of a certain backroom Liberal (who is unnamed here at present to avoid myl and Rogers getting served with papers).

I guess being out of the country for so long he didn’t really have time to brush up on the niceties of how parliament works, a fact true of many others and something the tories capitalized on at the time.

Does CPC Kool-aid taste the same as LPC Kool-aid? I tend to avoid artificial flavoring, but I’ve heard that the LPC brand has a fruitier bouquet and a silkier mouth-feel, while the CPC brand has more of a oaky palate, with a faint aftertaste of bile.

Well, I guess Ignatieff’s defence would be that he never actually intended to vote for the deal in the HoC which is where it actually counts. I think the letter he signed said something to the effect that the coalition should take over upon dissolution without proceeding directly to an election. Ignatieff could always argue that he would never have allowed dissolution to occur which would have effectively killed the deal. However, because Harper prorogued Parliament, we’ll never know. Of course, I wouldn’t believe Ignatieff if this was his argument but I’d give him marks for trying.

I wouldn’t take anything The Epoch Times says seriously. The paper, at least in Canada, is obscenely amateur – many a time I’ve caught bad spelling mistakes and major factual errors. Not to mention it’s backed heavily by Falun Gong activists – a group I find as hard to believe in their propoganda as the Chinese government in theirs. What I strange is that it’s the second time that this paper has been quoted recently with pro-Tory or anti-Liberal quotes.

Addressing the reception, Baird said, “I don’t think we realize how lucky we are, in the Ottawa area, in the National Capital Region, to have the performance stop here.”

“I didn’t receive a letter myself, but I was here last year and I am very happy to be here again this year,” said Baird.

Canada’s Governor General Michaëlle Jean sent a greeting letter, as did Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“I have no doubt that audiences will delight in the exceptional showcase of colourful, handmade costumes, brilliant choreography and outstanding musical compositions,” said Harper in his congratulatory message.

Over ten other greetings were received from other Canadian government officials, including Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley, Minister of State and Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity) Jason Kenney, Chair of the Conservative Caucus Rahim Jaffer, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario David Onley, and Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien.

I don’t think it’s so much a sign of bias than, as you say, amateurism; a lot of their reporting has the flavour of barely-rewritten press releases. As a newspaper, if you’re relying on that to fill pages, then whoever supplies the most is effectively going to ‘win’ their coverage by default, yes?

Don’t worry Ignatieff; Harper prorogued parliament after sitting for just two weeks, broke his own fixed election date law, said no deficits, didn’t unveil his platform till last week of the election, cadman, in and out… you know, the Canadian public are awfuly forgiving of their politicians. Carry on.

Exactly. No one understood that we don’t elect a single Prime Minister will all the power to govern, but instead we elect parliamentarians who then form a governement.
I’m glad there are some people out there who finished their grade 10 civics class but for the rest, they need to get a real education.

“I have a respectful but fundamental disagreement with my Bloc colleagues,” he said. “Many of them are friends; I get on with them. And I didn’t like the way Harper called them traitors to the country. I thought he stirred up antagonism between east and west, between Francophones and Anglophones in the crisis in December. I disagreed with that.”

Someone should pick up on the source – and why Mr. Ignatieff is quoted as apparently talking to this source.
The members of the Falun Gong religious group who have been persecuted in PRC – have actually successfully sued the PRC in Canadian courts – more symbolic victory than substantive – but they paid a pretty expensive lawyer to represent them – so they have must some financial clout.
Mr. Ignatieff – musing aloud in on the record interviews – without his trademark “on the one hand on the other hand” cover – is leaving himself open to just the same criticism that his predecessor suffered – people having difficulty understanding what he is talking about and where he thinks he is going!
A grudging hat tip to Mr. Coyne for trying to interpete what he might have been trying to say (for I must say – for Mr. Coyne to do anything beneficial for anyone of the Liberal brand is a rare occurence).

The Epoch Times? Am I the only one who thinks that sounds like something that originates in a college dorm or a dark basement? Andrew, I’m onside with much of what you say, but surely there is a better source. You know, a publication that people have actually heard of. Then again, this ‘exclusive’ story barely caused me to raise an eyebrow. Ignatieff now (3 months later) admits, what was plainly evident in December when he took over- there was no way on earth he’d ever actually get into bed with the NDP and the Bloc. In the abstract? Sure. In the abstract I drive an M5 and live in Monaco. Reality? Not so much. The man simply admitted what most observers (including many of your fellow pundits) believed to be true all along.

Come to think of it, maybe it makes sense that no real news organs have touched this so-called story.

The Coalition move has proved to be one smartest moves to get a Finance Minister Moving, Drive a Spike in a PM’s Coffin, Remove a Leader, Install a new Leader, move the third and fourth parties to bleachers and give political junkies much to talk about. So turn the page and lets find out how long the Americans borrow money at 19% interest and add to the National Debt of now over $11,000,000,000,000 growing at $8B/day ….. is that more newsworthy than what ever any politician says?

Now here this …… America has two years to fix the world or we all go down “Big Time” you do the math and do not forget to look for the additional trillions the Americans borrowed under the table. It now the worst of times and the best of times. to be continued ………

So turn the page and lets find out how long the Americans borrow money at 19% interest and add to the National Debt of now over $11,000,000,000,000
.
The US “National Debt” is public debt, which means government debt. It has nothing to do with credit card debt, or other private debts. At the moment, the US Government is borrowing at interest rates close to zero, which is a far cry from 19%.

Because the conservatives said something, doesn’t mean is automatically wrong. Only someone locked in a time warp during the coalition fiasco would not realize that Jack Layton came dangerously close to unleashing massive forces of disunity and even civil disobedience.

This is all the CONs have on Ignatieff so far? My advice is try harder.
Ignatieff didn’t form a coalition, nor did he express support after he became leader. He bluffed and the frightened Stephen Harper blinked and came up with a budget 2 months earlier than the Flaherty Fall FU called for.

Do you think referring to someone as CONs improves the perception others will have of your comments? Does it somehow make you seem less of a bitter partisan than someone who refers to the LIEberals?

Your argument is also entirely fallacious. One negative comment was made about Ignatieff and you somehow presume that’s the ONLY negative comment? What, is everyone supposed to list every single detraction we know about someone any time we say anything about anyone?

The threat of the Coalition served its purpose as a political ploy. It forced Harper, temporarily, back to some semblance of political sanity and fended off a threat to party funding. Thank goodness he will never see a majority, given what he has done, or attempted to do, with a simple minority.

You’re projecting some wishful thinking, it appears. They have oh so much more. How about:

– he’s more American than Canadian, having spent much of his adult life in the U.S. and having written repeatedly how he considers himself American, he only comes to the “lesser country up north” for the sole purpose of ruling us and nothing less;

– he’s a lifelong academic, spending it in the protected halls of the Ivy league, wholely out-of-touch with Canadian values

-he’s for attacking Iraq, except when he’s against it

– he’s against the Israeli state, except when he’s talking to his pro Palestinian constituencies

– he’s one of the handful of people in the Liberal party we know the party members DO NOT want as their leader, having LOST the only leadership contest he ever ran in. A man his own party doesn’t want to lead them, believes his “annointment” by the Liberal elite (and apparantly his own inherent Ivy League based eliteness) gives him the right to lead us all.

– having not been elected to even his own party, he sought to lead the country, unelected, having signed the deal to form the government.

– in a naked desire for power he signed the deal with the Seperatists, the very party the Liberal brand was built on fighting over the past Quarter century. In one fell swoop he cast aside decades of fighting the seperatists, and hence the last remaining identifiable thing the Liberals stood for, so he could take the reigns of power…..unelected as even his own party leader. The elite Americanized Ivy Leaguer, believed he had his rightful place to rule over us lesser northerners.

– “more American than Canadian”: Ignatieff lived in the US for 5 years (Jim Flaherty attended an American university, BTW). A PM having a perspective that reaches beyond a single region of our federation would be refreshing these days. Ignatieff seems to want to unite Canadians, Harper seems bent on dividing us by pitting regions against each other. Ignatieff acts more like a Canadian than Harper ever has.
– “he’s a lifelong academic”: Ah, yes. One of these ‘elitists’ with an education. Aside from his stint at Imperial Oil (which I’m not sure is over), Harper had no real-world experience before entering politics. Ask Obama if political experience is more important than leadership skills.
– “he’s for attacking Iraq”: So is Harper.
– “party members DO NOT want [Ignatieff] as their leader”: He lost the first leadership bid because of one person (Gerard Kennedy). Last I checked, Ignatieff is an elected MP. The only people I hear complaining about Ignatieff’s leadership these days are conservative supporters. Harper would love to see the LPC waste money and time on a leadership convention while the contenders throw darts at each other, only to select Ignatieff (the clear frontrunner) anyway. Why would conservative supporters (who could not vote at a Liberal Party leadership convention) care how he was selected?
– “he sought to lead the country”: Read the above article. Ignatieff declined the opportunity to lead the country under a coalition.
– “naked desire for power”: LOL! How much more desperate for power could one person be than Harper (unnecessary 2008 election, prorogation, proposed coalition with NDP/Bloc in 2004)?

Being well-published, Ignatieff’s views on a wide range of social issues are clearly-defined (for anyone who takes the time to look). Nobody seems to know what Harper’s true feelings are on any issue. As a young man, he was liberal, then he switched to conservative, then reform, then somewhere in between. Staunch conservatives are now calling Harper too liberal. It seems his true ideals are those which he feels gives him the strategic advantage on any given day.

*Ignatieff lived in the US for 5 years (Jim Flaherty attended an American university, BTW)* and in the uk for what? 30 years – and only returned when it seemed that he was going to be crowned PM

Naturally, if Harper had lived in the u.s. for five minutes, people like Nancy Tobin would no doubt be screaming as to how `foreign’ he is…

*One of these ‘elitists’ with an education.*, and with no experience leading anything. As for Obama, look at the trouble hope-n-change is getting into now with his incompetence – even the liberal media are calling it that…

*“he’s for attacking Iraq”: So is Harper.* which of course will neutralize the ability of Liberals to smear the Conservatives in the next campaign.

– *He lost the first leadership bid because of one person (Gerard Kennedy).* Of course, one person doesn’t elect anyone leader: he lost because Liberals didn’t want him as leader, period.

*“he sought to lead the country”: Read the above article. Ignatieff declined the opportunity to lead the country under a coalition.* Ignatieff `declined’ the opportunity to lead the country because he knew he would be driving the Lib bus over a cliff, given the lack of popularity of the measure outside of canada. and nancy, did you read the article. It’s clearly an attack on Iggy’s hypocrisy for coming out in suport of a coalition only to oppose it later.

*“naked desire for power”: LOL! How much more desperate for power could one person be than Harper (unnecessary 2008 election, prorogation, proposed coalition with NDP/Bloc in 2004)?*

there was no `proposed coalition in 2004′, please don’t recite Coalition talking points; as for Harper and power, yes he was actually elected to office whereas absolutely nobody voted for this Separatist Coup Coalition..

*An oh yes, I too have much more on Harper.*

and if the foregoing is the best you have, I’d like the see the sloppy seconds…

Kody.. you so hit the nail on the head…. Ignatieff is an American…… I cant believe Libs are so desperate (supporters too) that they actually are happy this guy is their leader… he doesnt even like Canada… read his books people!!! Denial denial and more denial… just like they were in denial the Dion would have been a terrible leader…… wake up…. get yourselves someone who actually grew up in Canada… got his/her feet and hands dirty on Canadian soil and isnt some spoiled Ottawa brat! I like Harper because he is REAL…. he knows what its like to work hard, get dirty…. and really believes in his work unlike many many other politicians who were just happy to uncork a bottle of dom perignon, eat 100.00 an oz caviar and watch women take off their cloths and call it a business meeting on tax payer dollars! Harper is a no-nonsense lets get back to the basics and quit selling ourselves out… buckle up and watch the other countries fall because of their idiotic spending. Because of Ignorantieff….. Harper was forced to spend…….. and now we face the same fate as the USA because this spending crap doesnt work anymore…… thanks Libs….. a$$holes.

If I’m not mistake, the letter was signed by Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe. I saw the letter, but maybe there was a shedule or appendix of signatures attached somewhere else I didn’t see.

If he did sign it, I haven’t seen an image of that signature, which I think would have been widely circulated.

It was another letter, signed by the entire Liberal caucus. Ignatieff’s people made a big to-do, via Jane Taber, of the fact the he was the last to sign. The Globe even published a reproduction of the relevant part of the document.

He also did not immediately repudiate the signature in any way. To the contrary, he openly embraced it, later holding out the prospect of taking Harper down with the coalition.

After the coalition is dead for all practical purposes, and has no real political fuel to burn, to then attempt to slink away from it shows an uncomfortably high level of opportunism and dishonesty for the high minded eltie academic from the American Ivy league.

“Every Liberal and New Democrat member of Parliament has signed a letter to Her Excellency the Governor General stating that they collectively and individually lost confidence in the government and were committed to governing together.” (Layton quoted in the Canadian Press)

He was the last Liberal to affix his signature to a document attesting support for the coalition, waiting until Mr. Harper was about to meet with Michaelle Jean before finally signing on. (Kelly McParland in the National Post)

The Globe ran a picture showing every Liberal signature on that letter, including Ignatieff’s.

He may not have been on television at the event alongside Layton and Dion, but he signed his name to a letter saying he supported the coalition option.

If the Bloc are the enemies of Canada and not to be permitted to participate in Canadian democracy, why is the party not banned and any separatist in parliament banished/executed for treason? If people want to whip up anti-separatist sentiment, they should put those words into action. Unless Harper thinks we should allow enemies of Canada to draw salary and pension from the government?

This is still a democracy. The Bloc have every right to form a party and try to break up Canada. We still have some freedom of speech left (although currently being eroded away by the HRC’s). That means we have the right to call them the enemies of Canada and expose them for what they are. NOBODY has the right to ban anybody from anything legal. That’s what democracy and freedom of speech are all about.

*If the Bloc are the enemies of Canada and not to be permitted to participate in Canadian democracy, why is the party not banned and any separatist in parliament banished/executed for treason? If people want to whip up anti-separatist sentiment, they should put those words into action. Unless Harper thinks we should allow enemies of Canada to draw salary and pension from the government?*

because they are a legal party, have the right to organize – do you want to suspend the charter now? the fact is, the bloc DO NOT belong in government, whether having an active role or as the silent partner. Period.

And if calling the Bloc `separatist’ is `whipping up sentiment’, what do you call Iggy for characterizing the bloc as just that?

“This is just an extraordinary statement. One, it validates everything the Conservatives have said about the coalition: that it did, indeed, put the Liberals in bed with the separatists”

Really AP? Validates everything does it? Validates, traitors, coup, illegimate coalition, when you know very well there was nothing illegimate about it! With such broad, inclusive language you give tacit support to the ignorant, of how our political system works and intentional demogoguery of the lowest kind. You greatly disappoint me, fair man that i know you otherwise to be. Shame on you sir!

I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.
The constitutional misunderstanding inherent in what appears (to us mere citizens) to be simply a decision on parliamentary tactics is so subtle, it will require a man of letters of the stature of one J@ck Mitchell to enlighten us.

No doubt it will still be Conservatives vs. The Coalition in the next election. The CPC will point to each of the opposition parties platforms, and say that none can be believed, because they’re all subject to coalition negotiations afterwards.

Plus with the Libs tacking hard right (relative to where they were when Iggy inherited the LPC), it’s likely to push down NDP-to-Lib switchers, as they instead vote NDP as a means to “swing” a Lib-led coalition government leftward.

Catherine, I took a look at the Epoch article. They didn’t say much about Ignatieff’s quotes on the Bloc because their article was not about the Bloc. If anything, that article gave Iggy a soapbox so I don’t think you have anything to complain about. They also didn’t take the same jab at Iggy that Mr. Coyne has here, so let’s not go shooting the messenger.

Yeah, the second Epoch article Andrew links lets the PMO take a shot at Iggy, but that’s in response to an article where Iggy was the only person quoted. Seems fair to me.

Regarding Mr. Coyne’s blog post, I see two sides. I think he’s right that Iggy has flip-flopped to a certain extent here, but I disagree that this comment is all that extraordinary. Common, I think most people knew Mr. Ignatieff did not want the coalition when it came about — he sent out enough signals about that to be clear. But he also wasn’t in power. Sure, if he believed the coalition was bad, he shouldn’t have signed the letter — that would have been the principled thing to do. But at the same time we all know he wouldn’t be here today if he did that. He would have been seen as undercutting Mr. Dion in his lust for the leadership, and that may well have killed his chances, and turned many in the party against him.

The real loss for Mr. Ignatieff here is that it suggests again that he changes his tune to suit the circumstances. Not all that uncommon for a politician, but undesirable nonetheless, and you can expect the PMO to remind people of this as long as Mr. Ignatieff gives them the chance.

His instincts were right, yes, and he DID act when it counted… do you see a coalition? No, because he took unprecedented actions to wrest control away from the man engineering the coalition. Him signing the letter was obviously just politics, whereas the meaningful action is there for all to see.

Why wont the liberals allow harpers get tough on crime bills to pass??>>>>>?????? hmmmmm it must be that the liberals are criminals themselves and wouldnt want to punish their own.
This justice system destroyed by the liberals is what we are going to be paying for with our lives

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.